Guests: Jeff Smith: Topics: Mr. Smith's July 13, 2020 Space Review article, "CSI: Rocket Science." Download this article at https://thespacereview.com/article/3986/1.
Please direct all comments and questions regarding specific Space Show programs & guest(s) to the Space Show blog which is part of archived program on our website, www.thespaceshow.com. Comments and questions should be relevant to the specific Space Show program. Written Transcripts of Space Show programs are a violation of our copyright and are not permitted without prior written consent, even if for your own use. We do not permit the commercial use of Space Show programs or any part thereof, nor do we permit editing, YouTube clips, or clips placed on other private channels & websites. Space Show programs can be quoted, but the quote must be cited or referenced using the proper citation format. Contact The Space Show for further information. In addition, please remember that your Amazon purchases can help support The Space Show/OGLF. See www.onegiantleapfoundation.org/amazon.htm.
We welcomed back to the program Jeff Smith for a two segment nearly 2 hour discussion regarding his July 13, 2020 Space Review article, "CSI: Rocket Science." Per the link above, you can read and/or download the article here: https://thespacereview.com/article/3986/1. I urge you to read Jeff's article and following along with it as you listen to this Space Show program. Jeff's article goes into far more detail than our discussion regarding a quality failure investigation for a rocket mishap. While Jeff talked about the failure review process in detail, by following along with his article as a guide, you get a step by step immersion in how to properly investigate not just a rocket failure but most any type of failure as a quality accident investigation uses the process Jeff described. For purposes of this summary, I will mostly focus on listener email comments and questions and our two listener phone calls. In addition, we experienced a sudden loss of audio with Jeff's phone line about 30 minutes into the show. We connected with Jeff using another phone line but you will hear the glitch and getting Jeff back on the line. We apologize for this unexplained phone line glitch. Please note that this program had a huge focus on testing including ground testing to avoid accidents and failures. Jeff could not stress testing enough. He also talked extensively about testing economics.
Todd from San Diego was the first to send us an email comment. He asked our guest for the difference, if any, in a failure investigation by the government or a private company, as well as the difference in an accident investigation for human spaceflight compared to only cargo. In replying to this question, Jeff talked about the fault tree which he explained in some detail. He said it was universal in accident or failure investigations, then he said it was a key way overcome problems and to avoid what he termed the "shiny penny issue," that is the tendency to be easily persuaded to follow an unfounded assumption or lead that ends up in a significant error of some kind. Don't miss the explanation provided us by Jeff.
Next, we received another listener email asking if an NTSB aircraft crash investigation was what Jeff was talking about. Jeff said yes, told us that the root of failure investigations was from aircraft accidents, specifically early jet planes. He talked about problems where things happen to fast for our brains to process plus they are highly complex. Once again, don't miss all of what Jeff said when addressing this listener question.
Marshall called wanting to talk about his failure investigative experience with microprocessors. Marshall made some very interesting comments that you will want to hear. Jeff and Marshall talked about bad tests, team experience plus new chip technology for iPhone and the Mac. The latter was supplemental to our discussion with Jeff given Marshall mentioned chips and I had been reading about the chip changes being made by Apple for the Mac and new iPhones.
Another listener asked our guest about academic training for failure investigations along with on the job training (OJT). Jeff talked mostly about OJT and mentorship in the field. He then talked about this being a very competitive environment and what that meant for the actual accident investigations, risk tolerance for the customer and risk management. Another listener asked how the investigations accounted for human error. Don't miss what Jeff said in response to this question. I followed up asking about holding policy makers accountable for bad policies that often lead to an accident. Don't miss what Jeff had to say about holding bad policy makers accountable, especially with regards to the AF, DOD, and NASA.
Listener Carl in San Antonio wanted to how often rockets worked fine the first time, no failure involved. Jeff had much to say on this subject but talked about every rocket or project having problems which is why testing is done. He said you do not want the failure to be on the pad with a payload on board. Listen to all of what he had to say in reply to Carl. In this particular part of the discussion, Jeff brought up the use of sensors, lots of sensors,. You will want to hear his sensor discussion.
Harold sent in a note asking about the new smaller launch vehicles in an investigation compared to the big rockets, perhaps even a heavy lift rocket. Jeff said all have issues and failure investigations. Clearly a larger or heavy lift rocket might have a more complex said of issues so it would be a matter of scale. The investigation process would be the same or similar.
Gene called in from Pasadena. He initially wanted to inquire why SLS was so late and so costly. Jeff suggested delays and cost overruns happen for two reasons, multiple change requests and the lack of project leadership stability. Both discussed this issue with Gene asking or suggesting that maybe companies do this to milk the project to make it last longer and pay them more. Listen to what both Jeff and I said about this idea. Gene then talked about using SLS for other purposes. I had comments to offer, using the F35 as an example, about trying to make one design fit multiple purposes and users. Don't miss what Jeff said on this and other issues raised by Gene. Before ending the program, Jeff commented on the huge paperwork load to document everything he wrote about and has been talking about. He said the documentation of evidence in a failure investigation is a huge burden. Listen to it in his own words. The final question was mine. I asked if the Chinese and Russians conducted the same type of failure investigation as we do. Listen for his answer.
Please post your comments/questions on the blog for this show. You can reach Jeff Smith through me at my Space Show email address.
The Space Show
